Improving 3-D Printing By Copying Nature

An anonymous reader writes "Biologist Janine Benyus is excited about the 3-D printer revolution and she thinks it can be improved by modeling natural processes. 'Benyus, who wrote Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature and co-founded the institute Biomimicry 3.8, would like to see a transition in manufacturing—from big, smoke-belching factories to small, clean desktop printers. The key to making it truly sustainable, she said, lies in mimicking how a natural ecosystem functions. "Nature uses life-friendly chemistry, which is nontoxic and water-based, and which does not require high heat," said Benyus. In contrast, most of the products people use today have been forged in industrial-size furnaces, with a plethora of toxic solvents. A potato chip bag may seem like a simple item, but it is actually made up of several thin layers of different materials, one to make it strong, one to make it airtight, and so on.'"

Comments

Slow

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

Nature also takes 40 years to give me a two-by-four.

More important than using recycled stuff

[sandytaru]

-- is ensuring that whatever we end up using for our 3D printed parts can, itself, be easily recycled. The problem with a lot of hard plastics is that they're difficult to recycle. Using softer polymers in 3D printing, and engineering their structures to create the strength (as the article discusses with the abalone shells) will allow us to create objects that can be used until they are no longer needed, then melted right back into the tank for new stuff. Having objects made from natural materials is all good and well, but the material has to be suitable for the purpose. I don't think I'd want a gear for my car made out of wood chips.

Please quite making asinine statements.

[nashv]

I hate such noob statements ""Nature uses life-friendly chemistry, which is nontoxic and water-based, and which does not require high heat," These are essentially teleological arguments.

Nature (the environment) uses what is available. Life evolves to survive, or it ceases to exist. Simple as that. You are a biologist, quit with the Mother Nature-Goddess Gaia worshipping nonsense.

Re:Please quite making asinine statements.

[Anonymous Coward]

I always tell people not to anthropomorphize nature, as nature does not like it. :)

Re:Please quite making asinine statements.

[Anonymous Coward]

Chem Eng, Enviro specialty here. Biological processes are sweet because they run at/near SATP (room temp and pressure) and generally use water (cheap, non-toxic) as a solvent. Typical industrial processing techniques use harsh-assed chemicals (safety + environmental risk) and a lot of energy (usually heat). That being said, biological systems are typically inefficient as shit and can't produce the same output / rector volume but are much cheaper. SO if you can create a culture that's particularly suited to what you want it to do (E. Coli is often used) you can recreate an expensive process that involves toxic (read: expensive to dispose of) with a cheap process with a disposal cost that is orders of magnitude lower than the traditional solution.

So yeah, that's why biological processes (low temp, nontoxic materials) are sweet. They cost less.

Re:Non-toxic?

[Trepidity]

The nontoxic part doesn't really make sense even taking adaptation into account. There are plenty of natural toxins that are toxic to us and other organisms. Nature sometimes "invents" them specifically for their toxicity, as in the case of reptile venom or mycotoxins.

And as for natural vs. unnatural chemistry: chemical-weapons programs use "unnatural" chemistry, while biological-weapons programs use "natural" chemistry. But does that distinction mean anthrax is the earth-friendly "green" alternative to mustard gas?